Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Persistent lies about the insanity in the electric comet
This insanity is that comets are at least partly terrestrial rock insanely blasted from the Earth and other rocky planets in insane electrical discharges between planets, the insanity of jets being electrical discharges, insane EDM cleaning comet surfaces so that even more insanely they are clean (none of the detected dust!) and a solar electric field powering all of those insane discharges.

Persistent lies and insults about posts and posters.
I state that there is no evidence of Birkeland currents at comets and get insanity about Birkeland currents and comets.
jonesdave116 writes about derailing from the insanity of the electric comet and gets more derails of delusions and insane questions about textbook physics and mainstream ices and dust comets.
We cite scientific literature and get insults in reply, e.g. "absolute tripe" when one of the many papers about ices detected at comets is cited.
etc.

Persistent insanity about real active asteroids has been explained to him many times in an electric comet insanity thread !
Persistent insane lies about the electric comet insanity which has no sublimation, centrifugal force or impacts producing dust - just the insanity of imaginary, invisible electric discharges ding whatever magic the massively deluded Thunderbolts cult wants.

A rotating body has a maximum velocity at its equator. That is where it is most possible for dust grains to be ejected. Thus "We have shown that the grains traveling to the equator of the comet can be thrown out into space" is what mainstream physics allows.
The last sentence is the obvious fact that the amount of dust covering ices will influence comet activity. So the migration of dust from rotation should influence comet activity.

Like a rotating garden sprinkler? Looks like, from this angle and solar illumination anyway, a fractal assemblage of filamentary highly colimated jets.

"Overall, this study advances our understanding on the origin of water as detected on the moon and other airless bodies in our solar system such as Mercury and asteroids and provides, for the first time, a scientifically sound and proven mechanism of water formation," HIGP's Jeffrey Gillis-Davis concluded.

The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years

Originally Posted by Sol88

...

The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
Repeated delusion that any comet is the Moon !
Repeated delusion that a water producing mechanism explicitly stated to be for the "moon and other airless bodies in our solar system such as Mercury and asteroids" happens on comets.
Usual insane lie about the electric comet insanity which does not have this water producing mechanism (that insanity has electric discharges magically producing water from solid rock).

Chemistry Professor Ralf I. Kaiser and HIGP's Jeffrey Gillis-Davis designed the experiments to test the synergy between hydrogen protons from solar wind, lunar minerals, and micrometeorite impacts. Zhu irradiated samples of olivine, a dry mineral that serves as a surrogate of lunar material, with deuterium ions as a proxy for solar wind protons.

The usual lies, delusions, etc. already addressed over the last 10 years.
Repeated delusion that any comet is the Moon !
Repeated delusion that a water producing mechanism explicitly stated to be for the "moon and other airless bodies in our solar system such as Mercury and asteroids" happens on comets.
Usual insane lie about the electric comet insanity which does not have this water producing mechanism (that insanity has electric discharges magically producing water from solid rock).

Why not comets? Since our understanding has evolved away from thinking comets were mostly ice to mostly asteroidial type composition.

How many times do you need to be told? Nowhere near enough protons in the solar wind. Solar wind isn't even reaching the comet nucleus for months on end. We have been through all this before. Why can you not manage to remember these things? Do you have a learning disability?

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

No one has said that. It is only in his head, not that of astronomers or anyone who thinks rationally about asteroids or comets. Comets are still made of ices sublimating to give jets, coma and tail. Comets are still made of dust. The ratio in a few comets is more dust than ices, e.g. at least 17% ices for 67P. which has lead to evolving (present tense !) toward comets in general being more dust than ices.

Comet dust and asteroid rock will have similar composition as the mainstream has held for 70 years! A common origin in the early solar system says this. They will also differ because the common origin is different parts of the early solar system, comets have a high % of ices.

The insanity is emphasizing yet again that his electric comet insanity is that comets and asteroids have are made of terrestrial-like rock from rocky planets such as the Earth. That is insane because we have tonnes of samples of asteroids and that rock formed in outer space. This is insane because we have dust grains from a comet and that dust formed in outer space. This is insane because the average density of comets is much less than that of asteroids (~0.6 g/cc vs rus ~3 g/cc) as he has known for at least 10 years !

His fact-less and ignorant fantasy is not part of the electric comet insanity !

A delusion that comets only have water ices?

If it did happen, this mainstream physics would be included in the mainstream model.
Comets will still have water, CO, CO2, methane and ammonia ices. Those ices will still sublimate. Jets, coma and tails will still be formed by those sublimating ices. This mechanism would be a tiny contribution to the production of water ices and water.

Any contribution to water ices from this mechanism cannot be significant has been explained to him many times .
It certainly cannot explain the amount of water ices that we have detected. Thus comets have to have native sources of water ices. And native sources of CO, CO2, methane and ammonia ices.

I'm away for 16 weeks and I come back to find our resident 'ec' expert still has NOTHING salient to offer regarding the subject of this thread! Silly me! Why would I expect anything to be different? You've been at this least 13 years, And still NO science! Still NO evidence! Still NO model! Sol88! How's your little world? Would you like to continue our discussion of the mainstream comet model used by Deca et al (2017)? What about Lisse et al (2006) as relates to accretion processes observed here, there and everywhere? What's next for you an me? More unanswered ASSIGNMENTS? Have you found that A'Hearn et al (20XX) paper yet? You know, the one where A'Hearn et al present evidence that COMETS ARE NOT MADE OF ROCK! They're actually made of volatile ices and dust!

What's the matter, Sol88? Are you still afraid to look through the ol' telescope? PATHETIC EFFORT! Don't you think it's time to up your game?

In the last 16 weeks have you taken any time to answer my questions? I've literally asked you hundreds and hundreds of pointed questions! Some easy! Some hard! Regardless, these questions are the same kinds of questions you and your camp NEED to answer if you want to graduate from RELIGION to science!

Sol88! Help me out here! How can you and I build a working 'model' of an 'electric comet' ...? Well, you start by answering my questions!!! ALL OF THEM!!!

Now, because the internet never, ever forgets, let's take a wee step back ...!

Sol88! In case it was not obvious, I do find value in the answers you provide to my questions! Why?

I ask questions to learn things! I ask questions to explore concepts and ideas with people! I ask questions because I seek knowledge! I asked my first set of 20 simple 'Yes/No' questions to explore your personal view of what science is, and what aspects of the 'eu/es/ec' are valid from your perspective!

Sol88, I ask you questions because I never, ever want to misrepresent your views! Your answers are always important!

Again, I present for your dining and dancing pleasure, the table of 20 questions! All you need do is "quote" this post and edit the answers to align with your knowledge and opinion of things. No need for explanation. That can and will come later! I'm just looking for Yes/No answers at this point. Please note, I've included your original answers as recorded in my last post.

TABLE: Sol88's 20 Answers to Indagator's 20 Questions

#

Questions

Answers

01

Could any principles/physics of the electric comet be wrong?

Yes ---> Yes / No

02

Could any principles/physics of the electric star be wrong?

Yes ---> Yes / No

03

Could any principles/physics of the electric universe be wrong?

Yes ---> Yes / No

04

Could every aspect of the electric universe be wrong?

No ---> Yes / No

05

Does gravity play any part in orbital mechanics?

Yes ---> Yes / No

06

Does gravity play any part in star formation processes?

No ---> Yes / No

07

Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in orbital mechanics?

Yes ---> Yes / No

08

Does electrostatics/electrodynamics play any part in star formation processes?

No ---> Yes / No

09

Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occurring in the core?

Yes ---> Yes / No

10

Are stars powered by nuclear fusion occurring on the surface?

Yes ---> Yes / No

11

Are asteroids made of rock?

No ---> Yes / No

12

Are asteroids made of volatile ices and dusts?

Yes ---> Yes / No

13

Are comets made of rock?

No ---> Yes / No

14

Are comets made of volatile ices and dusts?

Yes ---> Yes / No

15

Is sublimation (i.e., a state change from solid to gas) a real physical process?

Yes ---> Yes / No

16

Is eccentricity important to comet charging and discharging processes?

That is actually one of the bits of insanity that Sol88 persists with. When presented with the fact that anyone can find the papers A'Hearn has written Sol88 obsesses about and lies about a few sentences from A'Hearn's probably last paper !

When presented with the fact that A'Hearn has written dozens of papers on ices and dust comets that include ices and dust and not rock, Sol88 obsesses about and lies about a few sentences from A'Hearn's probably last paper !

Knowing that is an insane insult of the deceased A'Hearn to associate him with the electric comet insanity, Sol88 obsesses about and lies about a few sentences from A'Hearn's probably last paper !

I hope Sol88 changes the insanely ignorant answer to question 10 so that the Earth is not fried by the gamma radiation from the electric sun "nuclear fusion occurring on the surface" delusion!

EDIT: Oh dear, these people are starting to annoy me now! Yao & Giapis are still banging on about reactions with the spacecraft surfaces possibly producing the O2. I pointed out to them in an email that this is very hard to reconcile with the Alice observations, which show the O2/H2O ratio declining with increasing impact parameter (height above the nucleus surface) of the observations. It was also pointed out in another paper;

It is also important to note that Alice has detected O2 independently of ROSINA (Keeney et al.2017a), and post-perihelion Alice results indicate that the relative O2/H2O decreases with increasing impact parameter above the nucleus (Keeney et al.2017b). Although the Alice measurements may arguably be affected by spacecraft-produced O2, the observed O2/H2O variation with impact parameter would be unlikely within this framework. Finally, ER reactions require a direct collision with the appropriate atom, which is a low probability process.

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.